imranhasan

Agreed. But, this is a Hindu forum. Will I be wrong to ask about these basis in Hinduism? Please review my questions. Are you saying that 'Self Realization' is your answer to my questions?

Which of my questions did you give an answer to?

Thank you brother Pankaja_Dasa. Greetings to you. Unfortunately, I could not find answers to any of the questions that I had asked. Please do not presume anything about my religious ascription. My name is Imran, I was born in a Muslim family. Is that enough to make me one? I really do not think so. Even if I were one, would that be considered a disqualification in understanding the teachings of Hinduism or any other religion for that matter. If you consider the Koran to be limited for a particular time and space. You must have a reason for that. However, my questions do not presuppose anything about your understanding of any other religion. These questions are related to the scriptures of Hinduism alone. Trust me, I am interested in learning only. I have no intentions, whatsoever, of proving or disproving anything. I ask my questions for my own understanding. Subsequently, I make a presentation of my understanding in front of a group and try to get questions from them. I respect your beliefs and commend you for knowing what you believe in. I assure you, this is a not a very common quality in this day and age. Most of the times, I have seen people believing without even knowing any basis of what they believe in. My fond regards to you and God bless you.

Thank you, my brother. Your reply is precise as expected. Is this purpose mentioned in the scriptures? Can you please guide me to where I can find it in the scriptures? Also, would you agree that the questions related to the 'good' and 'evil' actions in trees, animals, insects and all life forms other than humans is pertinent with reference to the full understanding of this purpose? Thank you, very much my brother. God bless you.

In one of his posts, my dear brother and teacher Avinash writes: My questions with respect to this are: Do hindus believe the scriputres to be divine and flawless and applicable for all times? If yes, what is the basis of this belief? With reference to the statement 'Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods', we know through experience that even great and pious people make mistakes and sometimes very big ones. With this in mind, what is the basis of ascribing to the belief that whatever is entailed in these teachings of these great sages is flawless and true? How can we be certain that some of these sages god knowledge from God? Thank you and god bless you all.

Thank you, my brother Avinash, May I kindly request you to clarify the basis of this difference? Is this difference based on the scriptures? I fully appreciate that. I understand from this that when our belief is found to contradict what we observe, the reason we did not find our observation to be decisive would be easily understandable and communicable to others. Am I correct? I agree. But as you have clarified earlier, the basis of this belief will be understandable and communicable to others. No? I agree that that is the case. However, would you not agree that it should actually be based on our understanding of the strength of the reasoning, rather than faith? I agree again. In such a situation, what would you tell a person who is truly trying to seek the truth to do? Which of the many different interpretations should he follow? I have talked to a few of my athiest friends. I have great regard for them as human beings and I give them all the right to ascribe to whatever they understand to be correct. Nevertheless, as much as I have talked to them, I have never been able to see that there is a difference of interpreting the observation. It is, on the contrary, a refusal to interpret the observation. A believer in God would say that this universe and all that is in it is an indicator of how grand its creator is. While an atheist would say that there is no need to take from this whole creation any indications about its creator. Let us, on the contrary, just take this whole existence to have come into existence on its own, without a creator. I agree, my brother. Once again, I would ask you if these people were to exhange their interpretations respectfully, do you not think they'd be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each of the interpretations and, thereby, arrive at what was correct, according to their understanding. I would never pass any value judgments about any beliefs. whether a belief is ascribed to 'blindly' or not is not for me to decide. It is for you to teach me. However, in view of the importance of this topic, I have taken the liberty to start a separate thread on this topic, so that it can be given its due importance. I respect this. However, I am sure you would agree that when matters of belief are based on feelings, rather than reasoning and understanding, then such beliefs can only be of value to the person who has felt. Not for anyone else. So, one may not believe in demigods and still be a hindu, without any sin of rejecting a Truth?

Thank you, my brother. God bless you for your enlightening posts. I assure you, my brother, I never meant that. Please allow me to express my apologies, if my statement implied my suggesting that an alternative course would have been better for God. I really did not mean it that way. What I had actually meant was that when we believe and agree upon that God has the power to control all kinds of evil without making an appearance, then to say that God made a certain incarnation for checking the evil of 'X' cannot be the main reason for that incarnation. There must be some other reason that can be termed as a main reason. Controlling any evil may be a secondry cause, but not the primary cause. Don't you agree? My dear brother, I am really not in a position to say what may have been the reason for any of the incarnations of God. 'What if' will only lead us to conjecture about God's actions. As you have rightly stated, because of our limited knowledge, we cannot do that. Does the scripture that informs you about God's incarnation not inform you why God, who normally has preferred not to make an appearance, decided to make an appearance in a particular situation? I am sure, that the reason given by the scripture would really be the most important one. So, I would be correct in saying that the only primary source of the information regarding God's incarnation is a particular scripture, that is held to be divine. Is that correct?

Thank you, very much my brother Avinash, Gettting back to the original topic under discussion, may I please ask you to kindly state in your precise manner, what might we state as the purpose of life, according to Hinduism? Thank you, very much.

Thank you, my brother Avinash, Brother, if this is correct, then - without intending any disrespect - why would anyone worship any demigods. If all the blessings and all the afflictions are controlled only by God, why should anyone then worship anyone but the Supreme God? I agree with this. You are right. My statement was not correct. Please accept my apology. What I had intended to imply was not that our beliefs and religious concepts should always be known through physical and observable experiences, but rather that our beliefs should be based on observable and communicable realities. Would you agree with this? I fully agree that the concept of God is not a physically observable experience. But, I have always felt that we believe that there is a God on the basis of the study of His creation? If this is true, then our belief in God is based on a physically observable and communicable reality - the existence of the vast universe, the magnicent and varied forms of life, etc. If this is not true, then what exactly is the basis of our belief in God? This is slightly confusing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that both believing as well as not believing in demigods/demigodesses is not inconsistent with any 'known facts'. This can only be true if the 'known facts' was irrelevant to the belief in demigods and demigoddesses. Isn't that true? Please elaborate. Ok. Just two more questions in this respect: 1- For people who do not hold the Puranas to be divine, how would you recommend that I present the Hindu belief in demigods and demigodesses? 2- In your example of human governments, people say that human beings have to govern through delegation of control because of the lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Why do we believe that God would govern on the same principle? I am extremely sorry for not being clear in my statement. Does God not require us to believe in demigods and demigoddesses? Would a person who does not believe in demigods/demigodesses be considered sinful in not believing so? Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

Thank you, all my brothers. I request you to please allow me some time to consider all the arguments one by one. As that will be the only way for me to learn. Respected Avinash, I request your attention for now. I write this with reference only to your last response. My dear brother and teacher, I praise your beautiful remarks. You are indeed a very tolerant man, not only in practice (which I have sufficiently experienced, personally... ) but also in your thought and ideology, as is evident from this statement of yours. God bless you. I thank you, very sincerely for the attention and importance that you've given to my question. I would request you to please do try to find these answers and help me understand them too. I find your explanations and arguments very understandable indeed. Thank you. In this respect, two further points may kindly be added in your investigation: Firstly, these questions may also kindly be answered with reference to animals and insects and all other life forms, besides humans. Secondly, to make these answers more generally understandable, any non-scriptural evidence (which obviously would have more general acceptability) may kindly also be offered for convincing others. Thank you. By basic moral values, I mean the value of 'Truthfulness', 'Honesty', 'Justice', 'Kindness' etc. Remember, we are not talking about any situations. We are talking about the concepts truthfulness, honest, justice and kindness etc. When we say that "depending on situation...", we are then not talking about concepts, but the application of these concepts (whether by individuals or by societies). To explain this further, It would be a basic moral value statement to say that 'we should show kindness to those who are weaker than us'. However, there can be a situation where 'kindness' may go against another - more important - moral value in that situation. For instance, if you are made a judge, you should decide with 'justice'. In this situation, your 'kindness' towards the perpetrator may be seen as unjust and therefore 'unkindness' towards a person who has already been wronged. Finally, just consider this: 'Truthfulness is what is right, but depending on the situation lying can be right'. The statement itself clearly implies that we do not need any justification for truthfulness, however, if we want to establish that lying is correct in a particular situation, we need to justify it from the situation. I think it will be even clearer to you to understand what I mean, if you try to imagine where 'telling lies can be better than telling the Truth'. In view of this, I have always held that basic moral values are not specific to any religion. These are universal in their nature. Everyone, without exception agrees with and ascribes to these values. However, there can be situations in which deviations from these moral values may be considered justifiable. I would love to hear your comments. Thank you, my brother.

Thank you very much, Avinash, Thank you, for the answer. As I had stated earlier, I fully appreciate the point that because of our limitations, we may never be able to understand why God did something that he wants us to believe in. However, when I discussed this point with some of my friends (ascribing to various beliefs), there were some points raised on this concept. Most of these questions were of the nature of debate and lack of appreciation of other's position and stance. I did not have any problem in them and neither do I consider them to be of importance. However, there were a few question, that I find relevant but was unable to answer on my own. Please help me, if you find these questions relevant. 1- Does God have the ability and the power to control everything without making an appearance? If He does, then this cannot be the real reason to make an incarnate appearance. If He does not, how can we hold God to be Omnipotent? Please do comment. 2- When and where did the narrated story of Nrisimeh take place? Do we have any sources, independent of the Puranas, narrating this story? Thank you very much, my brother. God bless you all.

Namaste Eternal Law, Thank you for your time. Probably, I could not make myself clear. What I meant was. Any concept that is based on understanding can be communicated to others too. That is why differences become insignificant, for at least, we'll have a common grounds to communicate our ideas to others and others can communicate our ideas to us. I am most certainly interested in understanding the concept of Brahman. But does that imply the agreement that it is, in fact, our understanding that will make us believe or not believe anything? Brother, you have made your point very clear. And look, you have provided arguments for your belief. Right? That is exactly what I had requested you to confirm your agreement for. If we believe things on the basis of arguments, then our belief is based on understanding. If it is not on the basis of arguments but on the basis of tradition, then my questions may not find the answers, they'd be seeking. Do we agree on the points that I had given in my first post addressing you?

This, to my understanding, means that if God were to bestow a blessing on me or to afflict me with an injury, no one among the demigods and/or demigoddesses will be able to hold that blessing back from me or to save me from that injury. Is that correct? Thank you for providing me the opportunity for elaborating my question. Firstly, let me explain the reason that I ask this question: You see, a human being having authority over me, is not a matter of belief for me. It is merely a matter of the appreciation of his position, through my physical and objectively observable experiences. No one considers the individual in authority to be perfect in knowledge, power or wisdom. We would only accept his decisions, to maintain organization of the society. Furthermore, considering the decisions of another human being to be wrong or foolish or even sinful does not make me lesser in my faith or belief regarding that human being, for I never held him to be perfect, to start with. Now, if I were told to believe that God has delegated matters to other lesser gods, the matter does not fall within the scope of my observation. It is a matter that I may never be able to observe in this lifetime. On what communicable and understandable basis, then, would I be told to believe in this phenomenon? As for the question, "Why did God give any power to any such being?", the answer that comes to my mind is to test these beings in the very sphere in which they have been given power. Would the same answer apply to the appointment of demigods and demigoddesses? Is God testing these demigods and demigoddesses for their abilities? Why does he, then, require us to believe in them, worship them, and have love and devotion for them? I do sincerely hope that these questions are not indicative of a confused and unclear mind... God bless you.

I would love to know more about the Mr. Saraswati's interpretation of the Vedas and his arguments. But, obviously, that should come later. I think that is a very valid argument. Indeed, we cannot fathom all the reasons and all aspects of wisdom in any of God's actions. That, truly, is a matter beyond our comprehension and knowledge. However, when we are required to believe something about God, would it not be reasonable to seek a reason for that belief? Would I be wrong in asking for a reason to believe that God incarnated in various forms? Please guide. God bless you. A single incarnation may server many purposes. So, it is possible that Nrisimha incarnation was for other reasons as well. However, if you consider the main reason known to man, then the reason was what you mentioned, viz., keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu in check. Of course, it was also good for devotee Prahlad in the sense that he could see God (though in the form of man-lion).

Thank you very much for your beautiful response once again, I truly appreciate your contributing time for me. I would once again request you to please review these points once again. These points are not an enumeration prepared by a learned scholar, these are my own points. I assure you, I will be delighted to review and revise them on the basis of a better understanding. The reason I say that you may kindly review these points once again is that if you agree with these points, then the part, "At the same time, People of different religions may disagree with defination of God" does not remain as significant. Understanding is universally communicable. You have very rightly stated that peoples ascribing to different religions differ in their concept of God. I also acknowledge that differences in understanding are quite likely. But I still believe that even if such intricate concepts like the concept of God were presented on the basis of our God-gifted faculty of understanding, we would, at worst, be able to appreciate and acknowledge these differences in understanding and, at best, resolve them. I am not sure if I have understood this point correctly. Please clarify: Are you saying that Gandhi was Gandhi only because of the level of progress that Gandhi's soul had attained and Hitler was Hitler only because of the same reason? Was this level of progress of each of these souls in the hands of these people or was it because of something beyond the control of these people? Do you think that Hitler was devoid of the sense of Moral and Immoral action or would you think that he refused to listen to the voice inside of him and knowingly acted against it, even if he tried to justify his actions to himself and to the world, in general? I really do not know how to judge what you term as "Spiritual advancement of the Soul", but I do know that the two people understand the scriptures differently and are very active in trying to propagate their respective understanding to others. One can try to understand their respective views on the basis of one's own understanding and decide which of the two are correct. I really feel that this is the only objective way of approaching any subject. i really do not possess any objective criterion to measure the spritual advancement of people around me. But I do possess an ability to understand their point of views and decide if they are wrong or right. I fully agree with this. Where would you guide a person to begin, if he wants to take up an understanding of Hinduism? I request you to please let me know how is a person supposed to accept this Eternal Truth, if he cannot understand it. What is the means of realizing it, without understandig it? Thank you very much for your generosity. God bless you.

I see. So, the idea is that fire burns, fire warms and fire cooks because Agnideva directs it to. And rain comes down only when Indra directs it to. Just to understand more. If God were to decide about rain at a particular place, would he order Indra to send rain there? Would Indra have the authority to refuse or delay the execution of God's directives? If Indra were to decide about rain at a particular place, but God's Omniscience and Wisdom would require otherwise, would God be able to stop the rain? This is interesting. The questions that immediately comes to mind after reading this part is: Why has the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Wise God given powers of execution as well as decision-making to those who lack in knowledge, power and wisdom? Furthermore, why would an Omniscient God appoint a being subject to such qualities as "ego and greed", in charge of the affairs of a part of His creation? And thinking about it, I feel even a more basic question should have been, why did God give away a part of His creation to anyone, however capable, knowledgeable and safe from greed and ego that other being might be? Can it be called a mistake to give charge of affairs to beings who are not perfect? If God did this knowingly, does He give us any idea about the wisdom behind such an apparently inexplicable phenomenon? Please do not misconstrue my questions as criticisms. These are truly my honest questions and I have recorded them, as they occured to me. I assure you I respect you with all my heart, for you have given the most important asset in your life - time and attentioin - I am truly grateful for this. Please do not hesitate to refuse any questions that you may not wish to address immediately. We can continue with the next point, if and when you'd feel that way. Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

Thank you very much, Avinash. Your introduction of the Arya Samaj is truly enlightening and extremely interesting. It does raise a few questions in my mind, but I think we should defer these till I understand the basic issue under consideration here. Thank you. However, there is just one question that I would like you to briefly throw some light on. You write: Do you mean that Mr. Saraswati rejected the divine origin of the Puranas, merely on the basis that he didn't want to believe in what they said? Did he have no academic basis of challenging the divine origin of these puranas and yet he challenged them just to get rid of some of the beliefs? Did he have ANY academic basis of challenging these beliefs propagated by the Puranas? I find this quite intriguing. Nevertheless, if you so decide, we can take this up, later. This is an interesting and, to my mind, a fantastic story. I'd like to ask a few questions about it, but that would take us away from our basic topic. I would, therefore, try to keep any questions on this story aside, for the time being. If I were to derive the reason for the incarnation of God at the instance referred to in the story, I'd probably term it as keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu under check. Would this be correct? Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, very much my brother Eternal Law This is most brilliantly and eloquently put. I find it to be the voice of my own heart. I have always felt that Beliefs must precede actions, for they provide meaning as well as the basis for all actions. My dear brother, before I address my questions on your points, I would like to first seek your comment on one of the important starting points in my approach to understanding. This point relates to something I very strongly believe in through introspection. Nevertheless, I assure you, if I am convinced that this belief of mine is wrong (which, as you will see can only be done by resorting back to it), I will review and revise it, without a problem. This is my promise with myself... I believe that God created man; I believe that God gave man all the faculties and senses so that he could live an enlightened life by using these faculties and senses properly; I believe that with these faculties of and senses, God also gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong and good from bad. This entails man's universal awareness of and ascription to the basic moral values. I believe that God's first and foremost guidance to man is to bestow on him the faculty of understanding and it is man's duty towards God to use this faculty of understanding and to take his decisions in the light of this faculty of understanding. I believe that the only true universal standard of right and wrong is also provided by this faculty of understanding and the universal inherent awareness of the basic moral values. Please do consider these points very closely and let me know if you fully agree with these. My very limited exposure teaches me that without agreeing on these points, there's hardly a chance of establishing and continuing a meaningful discussion. In case you disagree with any of these points, I would love to know the basis, so that I can understand your view point. Thank you very much, indeed for your time and brilliant and precise response. God bless you.

I can understand that being a written word, one's interpretation of a scripture can be significantly different from another's. Such differences of opinion, I would presume, would be considered simple differences of understanding and within the allowable frame of differences. However, when someone would base his opinion on somethiing other than the scripture, this, as I see it, would amount to a much graver difference (in basis) even if the resultant difference of opinion is not as huge. Would you consider a person who does not derive his beliefs from a scriptures to be a Hindu? This question again is of secondry importance only and may be ignored for the time being, if you deem fit. But is it not against common human observations? What would be the basis of believing that a tree "can" possess the choice doing good and evil, when our observation suggests otherwise. So, the basic moral (and immoral) values are absolute and unchanging. Correct?

Thank you very much my brother, Avinash Without intending any disrespect towards any of my brothers here, can I ask if the Arya Samaj, because of not believing in the Stories of the Puranas, cannot be considered as Hindus? I ask this question only because when you say that they don't believe in God's incarnation, while "according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief", then, it seems that those who do not accept this belief, would not be Hindus. Am I correct? I am sorry, if this is a wrong question, you may ignore answering it, as it is not even directly related to the topic of this thread. Please excuse my ignorance. I am not even aware of any of these incarnations. How can I ask about the reason for any one of these. Can you pick up one, from the many and let me know why God incarnated Himself in that particular case. Thank you very much for your time. God bless you.

Thank you very much, my brother, Avinash. You are absolutely right. I meant it the second way. I have got your absolutely clear answer. Thank you so much. So, would I be correct to assume that in this second sense. The One Supreme God, alone is the creator? I see. Can you please give me just a few examples of some of these demigods/demigoddesses and their respective sphere of authority. This is just for my understanding. Thank you. Understood. Thank you. I see. So it is almost exactly like the way governments are run. I understand that these limitations are in their not being omnipotent and omniscient. Is that correct? This is interesting. Though, I think it would be an obvious corollary of their not being omnipotent and omniscient. The lack of their perfect knowledge and power would obviously result in their making mistakes. Would you consider that right? Just a related question. Would the Supreme God also be considered perfect in His Wisdom? Also, would the Supreme God's omniscience and omnipotence also guarantee that He, unlike the demigods and demigodesses, never makes a mistake. Thank you, very much for your time. God bless you.

Thank you, my brother SM744 for contributing your time, What I understand from this is that, according to you, just as a child is not intellectually in a position to understand, at an early stage in life, so is man not in a position to understand such concepts as the purpose of life. Just as a child must do what its mother tells, so should we just "live" in a particular way and not try to understand the purpose of life. Is that right? Is it not because a mother would only tell a child what to do, according to what she herself sees as the welll being of a child. A mother may not teach a child about the purpose of its life, at its birth. However, it would only guide it to do, what she sees is in its benefit, according to the ends that she wants the child to reach. What I mean is that in the 'mother-child' analogy, even if the purpose may never be expressed, yet it may be very clear and apparent through the actions and the teachings of the mother. Will you not agree that all of man's conscious actions do have a purpose and, subsequently, the success and failures of these actions are only to be judged with reference to this purpose? Please forgive me for my ignorance. What is spirituality? What is the means of attaining it?

Thank you Gaea. While I wait for brother avinash's reply, i'd like to ask you for some clarifications regarding some of your points: I thank you, very dearly for your answer, my brother. This is interesting. Please excuse my ignorance, can you - if it is not considered wrong - please let me know this teaching of the Shiva Purana, which is taken to be antagonistic by the Dvaitins, and why? I think I understand what you are saying. What you mean is that just like a good teacher would only teach his students the concepts that they would be able to understand and digest and also in a manner that they will understand and digest, so too these great reformers. Am I correct? However, If what I have understood is correct (and please ignore this, if it is not correct), then the basic difference between the teachings of these reformers should be of the nature of more or less expansive. Obviously, if there are any facts about somethiing that these great reformers have told their audience, those facts cannot be mutually exclusive. Will you not agree? Thank you. The one thing you will find constant is LOVE AND DEVOTION for God, whatever the intracacies of philosophy. I would ask you to see this unity in diversity. Hey, why not? "Hindu", as Avinash alluded to, is just a label for the body. If it makes you happy, good for you, use it. Spirituality is universal to everyone. Some will say God has a form/name, some will say not. Some will say everybody is God, others will be disgusted by this thought and say God is above us. Very different, as you can see. However none of them will say "Hate God", "Hate people" etc. All realise the importance of Love. This is a popular misconception encouraged by those who know nothing about Hinduism and try to write text books about it. Hindus are not Idol worshippers in the sense that the Ten Commandments forbid (OTHER POSTERS - if you have a quiff with this start off a different thread please!). Why we use Murtis ("Idols") is a whole different story. But essentially yes, there are many Hindus who do not use Murtis in their regular practice. There are also some Hindus (but not many) who don't believe in reincarnation. Are they gonna burn in hell for this? No, i don't think so. The most important thing is LOVE GOD. That is the essence of Hinduism. It is the essence of almost every religion on this planet (at least in their original states). G.

Thank you amala dasa, you write: Do you mean that good and bad behavior is so relative what is good behavior today may not have been so at another place or time? I really would like some clarification on this, as I have always felt that moral values in their essence are universal and unchanging. Though the form in which a society applies these moral values, may differ, yet the basic values remain the same. Is that not the case? Thank you.

Greetings to all, During my initial exposure of Hindu theology, I have come accross the thought that during various times, God incarnated himself in various physical entities and that the idols worshiped by the Hindus are, in fact, images of these physical incarnations of God. Is this true? Is the idea of physical incarnations of God an essential belief of Hinduism? My question with respect to the incarnations of God is: why did God need to incarnate himself in a limited physical being at any given time? Thank you.